How to balance without points?

[Valkyrion]

A couple of posters in the 10th wishlisting thread mentioned doing away with points as a balancing tool, and rather than OT on that topic I thought I'd bring out for general discussion.

 

AoS 1st edition was mentioned, and presumably some other tabletop games don't use points, so how are those games balanced and how could it translate to 40k?

[Captain Idaho]

I don't think there is any way to balance a game like 40K without points. The game is too big and too varied. 

 

I imagine specific scenarios could have set forces that are balanced for the situation, but that's not practical for a game with so many factions and so many different choices.

[Xenith]

...power level?

 

The thing is that people complain about points as a balancing tool, so GW introduces power level, and people complain about that. So GW cannot win and you can't please all the people all the time.

 

GW currently has 3 modes of game balance:

1) Player intuition - In Open play, use your favourite toys in what you and your opponent agree to be a balanced or fun game

2) Power Level - In Narrative use unit power level to get a quick gauge of a units effectiveness to build armies quickly.

3) Points - In Matched every model and item of wargear/ability has a cost attached to it. People like this the most as they claim it's the most balanced. 

Edited October 17, 2022 by Xenith

[Captain Idaho]

Power level is just points with less granularity and a different name to differentiate, so I probably should have been clear about that.

[Valkyrion]

Power Level is still a points system, IMO. It's not the same points system, but it's still a points system.

 

Just spitballing, but what about balancing by wounds?

Assuming a new edition is designed around this principle (rather than trying to squeeze it into current 40k) is there anything obviously wrong about playing 100 wounds a side?

[TheMawr]

Slots is one option; each datasheet is built up to be equivalent balanced ( example; ork boyz have the equal value to space marine terminators.. but for the latter's 5 terminators you get like 20-30 boyz), then each player takes the equal amount of datasheets ( could also make matching categories mandatory)... like power levels however, this makes any form of modularity quickly unbalance things. Also even more than now you would end up with "tax" systems in order to further balance things.. for example you can only take 1 datasheet Y if you have at least 1 of datasheet X.

Something like this might work with a horus heresy type of setup of equivalent type of armies, or smallscale skirmish games with only a handful of models but it wont work in 40k.

 

and there lies the "problem" I think, to have any form of modularity in a game with a wide scope AND have fair-ish balance, then points already are the perfect system even our world economy is kind of stuck to. With an added advantage that with a point based system you can easily finetune ( or rather patch up) balance on the fly.

 

Personally I dont get the problem people have with points, though purely out of curiosity I have regularily toyed with alternatives in my own game design past.

[TheMawr]

25 minutes ago, Valkyrion said:

Power Level is still a points system, IMO. It's not the same points system, but it's still a points system.

 

Just spitballing, but what about balancing by wounds?

Assuming a new edition is designed around this principle (rather than trying to squeeze it into current 40k) is there anything obviously wrong about playing 100 wounds a side?

 

it would become an interesting thing to balance as 10 wounds gives you either 10 grotz for orks or 10 howling banshees for eldar, wich is an undesired ( I assume ) situation... subsequently in order to solve those problems you have to either/both;

A. Increase the amount of wounds globally to create some sort of balance ( as the minimum of 1 should be reserved for the hordes.)
B. Create a lot of special rules and tax rules, for example a flying unit with 1 wound needs to have some differentiation from a foot unit with 1 wound, you cant always give the specialist more wounds than the basic troops.
C. Remove any modularity in datasheets ( either by seperating options in different datasheets or universalizing all weapons into more abstract categories.)

[Valkyrion]

I suppose that's a question in and of itself - does 40k need that level of modularity? Does it need 21 variations of a Bolter in Codex Space Marines? 

 

I'm also an advocate of the points system in general, but I think that's partly because I've never known anything different. 

[Khornestar]

Reducing the number of armies, units, wargear, and special rules would be necessary even with points to achieve balance. I don’t think such a thing is truly possible in reality.

 

Horus Heresy has the same issue really, despite marines being at the core of most armies. Toss robots and custodes into the mix and it’s another big shrug as far as that goes.

 

A mirror match, perhaps not the only way, sounds like a way.

Edited October 17, 2022 by Khornestar

[DesuVult]

A way to balance without points would be with pre-built formations.  You pick a faction and then pick a formation that has set allowed units with extra rules.  Something like a primaris captain and 20 intercessors or assault intercessors is a "Primaris Tacticus Strike Force."  It fulfills a command and a troop role requirements and at higher point games you can take more formations like "Astartes Tank Hunter Detachment" allowing you to take 3 selection of a mix of either devestators with lascannons or missile launchers or predator destructors.

[Xenith]

1 hour ago, Valkyrion said:

Power Level is still a points system, IMO. It's not the same points system, but it's still a points system.

 

Just spitballing, but what about balancing by wounds?

 

If power level is a points system because it's a way of attributing a numerical value to a model or models...then so is the W stat. You're just taking away the step of assigning models with lots of wounds a high power level. 

 

Look, people say Chess is reasonably balanaced, and even that has a points system/assigns a numerical point value to pieces.

 

Non-numerical value designations is maybe impossible? Even kill team where you dont use points but have a flat kill team make up that tells you how many guys to take shows me that 2 tzaangor are worth 1 rubric marine, so I can apply a relative numerical value to them. Despite what their 40k worth is, in kill team 1 tzaangor is worth half a rubric. 

 

The people that say PL are too abstract and make for unbalanced stuff probably also overlap with the ones that complain about removing warear options and having standard fixed loadouts on models and units, which is the only way to standardise unit effectiveness and therefore cost.

[Noserenda]

You need some kind of points if you arent playing with a referee or preconstructed armies, its possible once you know enough to eyeball roughly balanced forces but 40k has so many factions and units that its going to be nightmarish. 

AoS before the Generals handbook was a :cuss:show, balancing by wounds is a joke.

Personally i like Power level, all it needs is something for units with lots of options to up the power level if you take a bunch of them.

[Xenith]

9 minutes ago, DesuVult said:

A way to balance without points would be with pre-built formations.  You pick a faction and then pick a formation that has set allowed units with extra rules.  Something like a primaris captain and 20 intercessors or assault intercessors is a "Primaris Tacticus Strike Force."  It fulfills a command and a troop role requirements and at higher point games you can take more formations like "Astartes Tank Hunter Detachment" allowing you to take 3 selection of a mix of either devestators with lascannons or missile launchers or predator destructors.

 

This basically boils down to having to spend X% of your points on troops before you can spend y% of your points on elites/heavy etc.

 

2nd ed used to have that, and it would make some sense and go a decent way to balancing games - armies with bad troops choices would suffer though. 

 

6 minutes ago, Noserenda said:

Personally i like Power level, all it needs is something for units with lots of options to up the power level if you take a bunch of them.

 

Or maybe restrict powerful options to 1 per 5 or something?

 

A problem is that gamers will game the system no matter what.

The people that abuse PL and min-max will abuse and break any kind of balancing system that you have, so is there even a point in redesigning the whole system that 1% of people are breaking?

 

Exploiting those slight imbalances in power/points level are how people win tourneys, and abusing any balance system will continue as long as there is a competitive side to the game. D&D for example - there's always someone that tries to win or build the best character/cheese the rules, and there's no points involved. 

[phandaal]

2 hours ago, Xenith said:

The thing is that people complain about points as a balancing tool, so GW introduces power level, and people complain about that. So GW cannot win and you can't please all the people all the time.

 

Power Level is just a less balanced version of Points. You are still adding up numbers to judge relative army strength, just with Power Level there is no differentiation between a model with no wargear and a model with the best wargear.

 

People complaining about points are generally asking for a simpler way to build armies with equal relative power. Power Level fails in this regard because while it is simpler, it achieves that simplicity by removing balance.

 

In this case it is less "you can never please everyone" and more "worse version of the same thing."

[Wulf Vengis]

Bring back the FOC (Force Organization Chart).

 

It's not perfect but if each game is designed around a standard of oh I don't know, let's just say 1HQ and 2Troops we get something akin to balance. Then you could always add in further unit type options to spice things up. Say maybe each player can also take up to 3 elite, fast attack or heavy support units and for fun maybe 1 super heavy or flyer unit.

 

I know it's not perfect but it does work to help balance things. At least a little bit compared to the current nightmare that is.

 

Edit: Someone mentioned predefined army builds. That too could work.

Edited October 17, 2022 by Wulf Vengis

[Noserenda]

1 hour ago, phandaal said:

 

Power Level is just a less balanced version of Points. You are still adding up numbers to judge relative army strength, just with Power Level there is no differentiation between a model with no wargear and a model with the best wargear.

 

People complaining about points are generally asking for a simpler way to build armies with equal relative power. Power Level fails in this regard because while it is simpler, it achieves that simplicity by removing balance.

 

In this case it is less "you can never please everyone" and more "worse version of the same thing."

I mean thats manifestly not true, PL is based on the average cost of the unit, which presumes they are taking wargear, it only falls down with units like the old veterans (of various armies) who could take a huge range and amount of wargear, the difference between naked Vanguard or Chosen and fully tooled up units was enormous and it broke the system.

For most armies though it works just fine, you are just streamlining the granularity for the people who dont care if their tactical squad has a heavy bolter or a missile launcher, or for some armies like Primaris of Talons who have minimal, if any options.
 

4 minutes ago, Wulf Vengis said:

Bring back the FOC (Force Organization Chart).

 

It's not perfect but if each game is designed around a standard of oh I don't know, let's just say 1HQ and 2Troops we get something akin to balance. Then you could always add in further unit type options to spice things up. Say maybe each player can also take up to 3 elite, fast attack or heavy support units and for fun maybe 1 super heavy or flyer unit.

 

I know it's not perfect but it does work to help balance things. At least a little bit compared to the current nightmare that is.

 

Edit: Someone mentioned predefined army builds. That too could work.

Ech, FOC never really balances anything because troops arent even across the board, it relies on the troops slot being mediocre boring units and that simply isnt the case. Further, this is a creative hobby most of all and freeing players from "now paint 20 figures you dont want, to sit on an objective and die" was one of the better things they've done in recent years, much better than increasingly convoluted ways to make other things troops. Just pay some CP and make the army you actually want to own.
 

1 hour ago, Xenith said:

 

This basically boils down to having to spend X% of your points on troops before you can spend y% of your points on elites/heavy etc.

 

2nd ed used to have that, and it would make some sense and go a decent way to balancing games - armies with bad troops choices would suffer though. 

 

 

Or maybe restrict powerful options to 1 per 5 or something?

 

A problem is that gamers will game the system no matter what.

The people that abuse PL and min-max will abuse and break any kind of balancing system that you have, so is there even a point in redesigning the whole system that 1% of people are breaking?

 

Exploiting those slight imbalances in power/points level are how people win tourneys, and abusing any balance system will continue as long as there is a competitive side to the game. D&D for example - there's always someone that tries to win or build the best character/cheese the rules, and there's no points involved. 

2nd had atrocious balance in its army list, almost every army was 50% characters :D 

Ultimately points are the best way to limit something, if its costed appropriately people wont want to spam it, elaborate limitations or tithes just limit a problem rather than fixing it. Tweak the rules or tweak the cost.

And sure, almost every system has some ideal result or problem, but thats no reason to just give up.

[phandaal]

32 minutes ago, Noserenda said:

I mean thats manifestly not true, PL is based on the average cost of the unit, which presumes they are taking wargear, it only falls down with units like the old veterans (of various armies) who could take a huge range and amount of wargear, the difference between naked Vanguard or Chosen and fully tooled up units was enormous and it broke the system.

 

"Average cost" means the unit does not differentiate between wargear options, yeah? It does not only fall down with old units that can take a huge amount of different wargear. One example from many - Inceptors are the same Power Level whether they have bolters or plasma, despite one costing 50% more than the other when using Points.

 

38 minutes ago, Noserenda said:

For most armies though it works just fine, you are just streamlining the granularity for the people who dont care if their tactical squad has a heavy bolter or a missile launcher, or for some armies like Primaris of Talons who have minimal, if any options.

 

This is another way of saying that some of the balance is removed. Power Level is a less balanced version of Points. It is what it is.

[Valkyrion]

How do games like Warmachine, X Wing and the mantic games (drop zone or something?) balance. Do they all use points?

[MasterDeath]

Kings of war uses a Slot system. Every unit has a size (troop, Regiment, horde, Legion) and you need a Regiment to unlock more troops (or something Like that, not playing it myself) 

By that Idea every max size core troop could unlock one or two other units. 

[Scribe]

Either.

 

1. Points, with options that are meaningful with associated cost.

2. Slots/Power/Whatever, with options that are meaningless.

 

I know which one I prefer.

[Xenith]

3 hours ago, phandaal said:

just with Power Level there is no differentiation between a model with no wargear and a model with the best wargear.

 

And again, the people that would abuse this are the same ones that would abuse any army construction system, point based or not. 

 

If you had a point-less, slot based system for example...there's always going to be a 'best' unit/option for that slot, unless every unit is perfectly balanced with every other unit in that slot both internally and externally.

 

The people that would cause problems in a PL based system by giving everyone a thunder hammer for example, would also cause problems in a slot system...as they would pick the best option available to them in every instance, as opposed to say, picking the units they like the best, or what their unit is actually equipped with thematically in a PL system. 

[phandaal]

24 minutes ago, Xenith said:

 

And again, the people that would abuse this are the same ones that would abuse any army construction system, point based or not. 

 

If you had a point-less, slot based system for example...there's always going to be a 'best' unit/option for that slot, unless every unit is perfectly balanced with every other unit in that slot both internally and externally.

 

The people that would cause problems in a PL based system by giving everyone a thunder hammer for example, would also cause problems in a slot system...as they would pick the best option available to them in every instance, as opposed to say, picking the units they like the best, or what their unit is actually equipped with thematically in a PL system. 

 

The comment I wanted to address was only the part I quoted - that people can never be pleased because Power Level is generally not well-regarded.

 

On some level some people do complain, but in the case of Power Level the issue is that it does not deliver balance along with simplicity. In fact, it moves in the exact opposite direction and creates less balanced games. That being the case, of course people are not going to be satisfied.

 

The fact that people will abuse things is not in dispute.

[tychobi]

Balance through rules changes are possible.  Tweaking stats, doling out small bonuses can bring flavour as well as tweaking how a unit fits into its meta.  Armor of Contempt is a fairly ham handed approach.  Big broad rules change applied en masse are easy to implement but often apply in unintended ways.  AOC was a far bigger buff to Death Guard than Ultramarines for instance.  The targeted buff to Assault Marines (free weapons) has seen them storm back into relevance. 

 

As a points based game it seem silly to not use points balance when appropriate.  GW have a variety of tools at their disposal to achieve game balance.  

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

Any reasonable method of balancing is going to end up being points in some fashion or another.

[LameBeard]

Two ways you can achieve (theoretical) perfect balance without points:

 

1) Mirror match. That would be a huge overhaul of 40k, to make every faction a mere “skin” of underlying same data sheets, but it could be done.

 

2) Player 1 chooses both armies. Player 2 picks the army they want to play. Big downside is getting over the nervousness of someone else touching your models.